TECHNOLOGY, OUTSOURCING, AND COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS
NEWS FOR LAWYERS AND SOURCING PROFESSIONALS

Morgan Lewis will co-host an interactive master workshop on negotiations and contracting geared toward business leaders, sourcing professionals, and in-house counsel who work together on complex transactions such as digital transformations and vendor outsourcing. Edward J. Hansen, Vito Petretti, Donald G. Shelkey and Valerie A. Gross of our Technology, Outsourcing and Commercial Transactions practice will present and lead discussions on topics including:

As 2018 comes to a close, we have once again compiled all the links to our Contract Corner blog posts, a regular feature of Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis. In these posts, members of our global technology, outsourcing, and commercial transactions practice highlight particular contract provisions, review the issues, and propose negotiating and drafting tips. If you don’t see a topic you are interested in below, please let us know, and we may feature it in a future Contract Corner.

Picking up where we left off last week, we continue our refresher on common issues to consider when entering into a transaction that will include royalties. Today’s entry focuses on timing and reporting considerations for the calculation and payment of royalties.

It's one of the most commonly utilized commercial structures in various technology and intellectual property licensing deals: the royalty. As everyone's go-to payment mechanism for licensing deals, you may think that the nuances of royalty calculation and payment are well-defined and understood universally. But, time and again, we find that walking through a list of potential royalty "pain points" uncovers certain components of a contemplated royalty-based deal that have neither been considered nor agreed by the parties.

For that reason, we think it's a good time for a refresher on common points to be considered when entering into a transaction that will include royalties. While the specific terms governing a royalty will vary based on numerous factors, including the nature of the products and the underlying licensed materials and the contemplated commercialization structure, many concepts are useful across the board. Today’s entry focuses on issues related to defining the relevant scope of royalty calculations, while a forthcoming post will address issues related to royalty timing and reporting considerations.

Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court rejected requests from the telecommunications industry to hear an appeal seeking to throw out a 2016 lower court ruling in favor of the “net neutrality” rules. Recent action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has rolled back the rules, but the industry participants also wanted to overturn the lower court decision.

Washington, DC partners Giovanna M Cinelli, Kenneth J. Nunnenkamp, and Stephen Paul Mahinka and Boston partner Carl A. Valenstein recently published a LawFlash on the recent action taken by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to implement a pilot program under the Foreign Investment Risk Review and Modernization Act (FIRRMA). FIRRMA, which was enacted in August 2018, reformed the CFIUS screening process for foreign investment in the United States and, among other things, permits CFIUS to establish pilot programs to test the viability of certain of its provisions. The LawFlash addresses the objectives and the scope of the announced pilot program, including the countries and types of investments covered by the program. It also describes the new requirement for mandatory declarations "for certain transactions involving investments by foreign persons in certain U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies" implemented by the pilot program. The pilot program becomes effective November 10, 2018.

For more information on the pilot program, please read the LawFlash.

There is no “one size fits all” solution when drafting and negotiating the liability provisions relating to data protection obligations and security incidents. Every contract has unique business drivers that will shape the appropriate allocation of liability, such as financial risk and the sensitivity of the data involved. There are, however, common issues that the legal, sourcing, and business teams should carefully consider when structuring the liability framework as it applies to data safeguards. Below we identify some of these key issues.

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this Contract Corner, we discussed the importance of assessing and defining the types of data involved in a services agreement, and highlighted issues to consider with respect to the ownership and control of company and personal data.

In this Part 3, we discuss key drafting points regarding the operational security requirements typically addressed in services agreements.

In Part 1 of this Contract Corner, we discussed the importance of evaluating the types of data to be processed or accessed by a service provider at the beginning of the contracting process and key considerations to address when defining the types of data in the services contract.

This Part 2 highlights issues to consider with respect to the ownership and control of company data.

In Part 1 of this Contract Corner, we discussed the importance of evaluating the types of data to be processed or accessed by a service provider at the beginning of the contracting process and key considerations to address when defining the types of data in the services contract.

This Part 2 highlights issues to consider with respect to the ownership and control of company data.